Is there something sinister going on here,
or am I just
paranoid?
Nothing sinister is going on here.
The
Groklaw that I've loved for ten years wouldn't suppress the reporting of a
trial, surely?
PJ has published what amounts to a
charter for Groklaw: Mark agreed with it. That 'charter' shows that "[t]he
Groklaw that [you]'ve loved for ten years" focuses on with the intersection of
law, primarily civil and Imaginary Property, and computer technology, primarily
software. Brief forays into allied areas are expected, but not totally
irrelevant stuff. Some areas are explicitly forbidden: politics and religion,
primarily. (PJ and Mark, obviously, have the right, but no duty, to allow
exceptions, at their sole discretion.)
The Gosnell case has no overlap
with Groklaw's defined scope. It's a criminal matter with no technology
content or implications. Additionally, it is rife with religious and political
distractions, as the
indictment recognized.
No, the Gosnell affair is not being suppressed:
it's just out of bounds and not that interesting to the Groklaw membership and
leadership. It's adequately discussed in other, more appropriate, fora: Google
can help you find them. ---
--Bill. NAL: question the answers,
especially mine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
